2016年-世界发展银行全球_Disaster_Risk_Finance_Country_Note___Serbia_30页_478kb

Disaster Risk Finance Country Note: Serbia Summary

Core Content

This document provides an overview of Serbia's disaster risk financing and management system, focusing on the financial implications of natural disasters and the institutional arrangements in place to address them. It highlights the need for a more comprehensive and proactive approach to disaster risk management (DRM) and financial protection.

Key Information

• Country Overview:

  • Serbia has a population of 7.1 million and a land area of 87,460 square kilometers.
  • The country has faced significant economic and social impacts due to natural disasters, including floods, droughts, and earthquakes.
  • The 2014 floods were the most severe in 120 years, affecting 1.6 million people (22% of the population) and causing €1.7 billion in damages, equivalent to 4.8% of GDP.
  • The floods led to a 1.8% contraction in the economy, reversing the previously projected 0.5% growth.

• Economic Impact:

  • The energy and mining sector suffered the highest damage (€494 million), followed by housing (€231 million), agriculture (€228 million), and transport (€167 million).
  • The disaster had a significant impact on poverty and the Human Development Index, pushing Serbia back to 2012 levels.
  • About 51,800 people temporarily lost their jobs due to the floods.

• Fiscal Impact:

  • Public debt increased from 32.4% of GDP in 2008 to over 70% by 2014.
  • The government has been working to reduce public debt through fiscal consolidation and structural reforms.

Institutional Arrangements

• Ministry of Finance (MoF):

  • Responsible for designing disaster financing strategies.
  • Currently lacks a clear, systematic strategy for disaster risk financing and insurance (DRFI).
  • The budgetary accounting system does not allow for multiyear accumulation of resources, making it difficult to allocate funds for contingencies.

• Government Office for Reconstruction and Flood Relief (established in May 2014):

  • An ad hoc body tasked with coordinating aid and financing, reconstruction, and rehabilitation.
  • Operated for one year and was extended until the end of 2015.
  • Played a key role in the development of the National Disaster Risk Management Program (NDRM).

• Legislative Developments:

  • The Law on Reconstruction Following Natural and Other Hazards was passed in December 2015, establishing a permanent body for postdisaster reconstruction.
  • The Disaster Risk and Crisis Management Law (DRCM) is expected to be adopted in 2016, creating a new national authority for disaster risk reduction and emergency management.

Public Financial Management of Natural Disasters

• Ex Ante Instruments:

  • Budget Reserves:
    • The Permanent Budgetary Reserve was originally RSD 2 million (€15,000–20,000), but was increased to RSD 2.3 billion (almost €20 million) after the 2014 floods.
    • Compensation for Damage Caused by Natural Disasters (Account 484):
      • Increased from RSD 80 million (almost €700,000) to RSD 200 million (€1.5 million) after the floods.
  • Contingent Financing:
    • Not currently available, though a Catastrophe Deferred Drawdown Option (CAT DDO) is in early preparation.

• Ex Post Instruments:

  • Budget Reallocation:
    • Funds can be reallocated from other budget items, but this process is slow and uncertain.
  • Donor Assistance:
    • Unpredictable and often in-kind, with total commitments of €235 million in 2014.
  • Emergency Borrowing:
    • Used in the case of the 2014 floods, with €227.5 million drawn from the World Bank.

Risk Layering Strategy

• A three-tiered risk layering strategy is recommended to manage different levels of disaster risk:
  1. Low-risk layer:
     • Includes budget reserves (Permanent Budgetary Reserve and Account 484).
     • Funds are used for smaller, recurrent disasters.
  2. Medium-risk layer:
     • Involves contingent financing mechanisms (e.g., CAT DDO).
     • Not yet fully implemented.
  3. High-risk layer:
     • Relies on donor assistance, emergency borrowing, and insurance.
     • These are less predictable and more expensive.

Case Study: May 2014 Floods

• The floods caused widespread damage to infrastructure, housing, and economic activities.
• The government conducted a Postdisaster Needs Assessment (PDNA), which estimated the total financial needs at €1,346 million, with €403 million for recovery and €943 million for reconstruction.
• The recovery and reconstruction schedule extended into 2016 (Figure 2.1).
• The timing of needs and execution of financial instruments (Figure 2.2) shows that funds are not always required simultaneously, and therefore, the use of layered instruments is essential.

Summary and Fiscal Resources Gap

• Fiscal Resources Gap:
  • The government lacks sufficient resources to cover even smaller, recurrent disasters.
  • The current system relies heavily on ex post mechanisms, which are not reliable or efficient.
  • A fiscal risk unit within the Ministry of Finance is being considered to improve the analysis and coordination of disaster financing.

Options for Consideration

• Develop a comprehensive disaster risk financing strategy.
• Establish a fiscal risk unit to support disaster risk management.
• Implement contingent financing mechanisms such as CAT DDO.
• Strengthen institutional frameworks to ensure a more coordinated and proactive approach to disaster risk management.

References

• World Bank and GFDRR (2014) – Three-Tiered Risk Layering Strategy for Governments.
• Government of the Republic of Serbia (2014a, 2014b) – Postdisaster Needs Assessment and related reports.
• United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and World Bank – Support in developing legislation and DRM frameworks.
• Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) – Financial support for the project.
• International Monetary Fund (IMF) – Provided a three-year stand-by arrangement to support Serbia's fiscal consolidation.

Conclusion

Serbia has made progress in shifting from a reactive to a proactive disaster risk management approach, but significant gaps remain in its disaster risk financing system. A more structured and comprehensive strategy is needed to ensure financial resilience and reduce the economic and social impact of natural disasters. The establishment of a fiscal risk unit and the development of layered financial instruments are seen as key steps toward achieving this goal.